Bootstrap Philosophy and Goeffrey Chew.
Descriptive internet quote about bootstrap philosophy:
"The bootstrap philosophy originated by Geoffrey Chew, constitutes the final rejection of the mechanistic worldview in modern physics."
Goeffrey Chew was a physics professor who died 3 years ago aged 94. From Wiki:
"Chew was known as a leader of the S-matrix approach to the strong interaction and the associated bootstrap principle, a theory whose popularity peaked in the 1960s when he led an influential theory group at the University of California, Berkeley. S-matrix theorists sought to understand the strong interaction by using the analytic properties of the scattering matrix to calculate the interactions of bound-states without assuming that there is a point-particle field theory underneath. The S-matrix approach did not provide a local space-time description. Although it was not immediately appreciated by the practitioners, it was a natural framework in which to produce a quantum theory of gravity."
The bootstrap philosophy imo, attempts to find common ground between a metaphysical and purely physicalist model of the Universe.
Chew's S-matrix was a forerunner that led to string theory.
Here is a description of the bootstrap philosophy:
[i]Newton's universe was constructed from a set of basic entities with certain fundamental properties, which had been created by God and thus were not amenable to further analysis. In one way or another, this notion was implicit in all theories of natural science until the bootstrap hypothesis stated explicitly that the world cannot be understood as an assemblage of entities which cannot be analyzed further. In the new worldview, the universe is seen as a dynamic web of interrelated events. None of the properties of any part of this web is fundamental; they all follow from the properties of the other parts, and the overall consistency of their mutual interrelations determines the structure of the entire web.
Thus, the bootstrap philosophy represents the culmination of a view of nature that arose in quantum theory with the realization of an essential and universal interrelationship, acquired its dynamic content in relativity theory, and was formulated in terms of reaction probabilities in S-matrix theory. At the same time, this view of nature came ever closer to the Eastern worldview and is now in harmony with Eastern thought, both in its general philosophy and in its specific picture of matter."
“The new physics is an integral part of the new worldview that is now emerging in all the sciences and in society. The new worldview is an ecological worldview that is grounded, ultimately, in spiritual awareness. Therefore it is not surprising that the new paradigm, as it emerges in physics and in the other sciences, will be in harmony with many ideas in spiritual traditions.”
"In the new paradigm, the relationship between the part and the whole is more symmetrical. We believe that while the properties of the parts certainly contribute to our understanding of the whole, at the same time the properties of the parts can only be fully understood through the dynamics of the whole. The whole is primary, and once you understand the dynamics of the whole, you can then derive, at least in principle, the properties and patterns of interactions of the parts. This change of the relationship between the part and the whole occurred in science first in physics, when quantum theory was developed."
"Gradually, physicists began to realize that nature, at the atomic level, does not appear as a mechanical universe composed of fundamental building blocks, but rather as a network of relations, and that ultimately, there are no parts at all in this interconnected web. Whatever we call a part is merely a pattern that has some stability and therefore captures our attention."[/i]
I am not personally a strong advocate of 'bootstrap philosophy' as it is described above but if it drives people like Goeffrey Chew to achieve what he achieved and it can help to create less acrimony between those who see value in metaphysics and those who don't then perhaps it's a good philosophy.
What do you think?
"The bootstrap philosophy originated by Geoffrey Chew, constitutes the final rejection of the mechanistic worldview in modern physics."
Goeffrey Chew was a physics professor who died 3 years ago aged 94. From Wiki:
"Chew was known as a leader of the S-matrix approach to the strong interaction and the associated bootstrap principle, a theory whose popularity peaked in the 1960s when he led an influential theory group at the University of California, Berkeley. S-matrix theorists sought to understand the strong interaction by using the analytic properties of the scattering matrix to calculate the interactions of bound-states without assuming that there is a point-particle field theory underneath. The S-matrix approach did not provide a local space-time description. Although it was not immediately appreciated by the practitioners, it was a natural framework in which to produce a quantum theory of gravity."
The bootstrap philosophy imo, attempts to find common ground between a metaphysical and purely physicalist model of the Universe.
Chew's S-matrix was a forerunner that led to string theory.
Here is a description of the bootstrap philosophy:
[i]Newton's universe was constructed from a set of basic entities with certain fundamental properties, which had been created by God and thus were not amenable to further analysis. In one way or another, this notion was implicit in all theories of natural science until the bootstrap hypothesis stated explicitly that the world cannot be understood as an assemblage of entities which cannot be analyzed further. In the new worldview, the universe is seen as a dynamic web of interrelated events. None of the properties of any part of this web is fundamental; they all follow from the properties of the other parts, and the overall consistency of their mutual interrelations determines the structure of the entire web.
Thus, the bootstrap philosophy represents the culmination of a view of nature that arose in quantum theory with the realization of an essential and universal interrelationship, acquired its dynamic content in relativity theory, and was formulated in terms of reaction probabilities in S-matrix theory. At the same time, this view of nature came ever closer to the Eastern worldview and is now in harmony with Eastern thought, both in its general philosophy and in its specific picture of matter."
“The new physics is an integral part of the new worldview that is now emerging in all the sciences and in society. The new worldview is an ecological worldview that is grounded, ultimately, in spiritual awareness. Therefore it is not surprising that the new paradigm, as it emerges in physics and in the other sciences, will be in harmony with many ideas in spiritual traditions.”
"In the new paradigm, the relationship between the part and the whole is more symmetrical. We believe that while the properties of the parts certainly contribute to our understanding of the whole, at the same time the properties of the parts can only be fully understood through the dynamics of the whole. The whole is primary, and once you understand the dynamics of the whole, you can then derive, at least in principle, the properties and patterns of interactions of the parts. This change of the relationship between the part and the whole occurred in science first in physics, when quantum theory was developed."
"Gradually, physicists began to realize that nature, at the atomic level, does not appear as a mechanical universe composed of fundamental building blocks, but rather as a network of relations, and that ultimately, there are no parts at all in this interconnected web. Whatever we call a part is merely a pattern that has some stability and therefore captures our attention."[/i]
I am not personally a strong advocate of 'bootstrap philosophy' as it is described above but if it drives people like Goeffrey Chew to achieve what he achieved and it can help to create less acrimony between those who see value in metaphysics and those who don't then perhaps it's a good philosophy.
What do you think?
Comments (109)
It wasn't the S-matrix per se that led to string theory though (though of course in the context). It was the strong interaction, where the force was depicted by elastic strings.
From 2017. Interesting stuff!
I can see why Capra was a fan. Bears eastern philosophy. I think Rovelli likes it. Of course, this doesn't mean elementary particles and space don't exist.
My idol, David Bohm would have liked it. Just read his holographic universe. The universal S-matrix...
EEEE
E
EEE
E
EEEE
That's how my brain understands Chew!
As a matter of fact, that's exactly what's it about!
:nerd:
Haha! Poor Geoffrey.... He could have known he had it coming though.
"I Chew my boots mam. I feel trapped!"
I think he probably does as I think he sees time as not really having fundamental quanta.
Many including I think Brian Cox consider gravity to be a result of interaction and not made of a fundamental quantum, such as the graviton.
Maybe a quantum theory of gravity will prove to be unrequired after all in the correct ToE.
Little E's can make big E's but what are the little E's made of. A fundamental E?
E's are also illegal in all night clubs in Glasgow!
Clever man who sadly, was often very ill and depressed. As I have stated before, I will never understand why he associated with a mystic like Jiddu Krishnamurti.
It's like Einstein taking advice from a woo woo guru!
As he is into loop gravity, he aims for quantized time.
Quoting universeness
Yeah, that's the emergent gravity theory. Erik Verlinde (a weird Dutch guy not responding to any email at all...) has such a "revolutionary" view on gravity (which even got him the Spinoza prize: 2000 000 euro, no kidding! Dear mother of god, for obvious nonsense woowoo!). The theory has it the wrong way round. Its, among other things, based on the ADS/CFT correspondence and entanglement, but it's got things the wrong way round. Dark matter and dark energy are pushed in the wrong closet or better, two equal poles are pushed together.
Gravity is just as well as the 3 basic interactions, is a means for all forms of energy to interact by coupling to virtual gravitons. The problem with gravitons is that they have to curve spacetime as well. A condensate of gravitons around or in between masses is what the masses couple to, but, contrary to the other gauge particles, the gravitons work on the metric of space (and thus time, if the speed of light is finite, too).
What on Earth has that got to do with his physics?
Because your natural desire for the mystic is suppressed by the ruling powers.
I think his up-and-coming paper will suggest equations for loop quantum gravity that do not include a time variable. At least, that's my understanding from his most recent interviews on YouTube.
My dear mother god... Why shouldn't he. Like you think, science will never progress. Pointing at the fact of not being peer-reviewed or published, and being afraid to be banned on Quora when the dogma is challenged...
All that you are influences all that you do!
Quoting Hillary
No, I am just not easily duped. I am not immune but I am not lost to woo woo, like someone who is a....oh I dunno?....a polytheist!
Exactly! That's why you don't understand the gods or mystics. You're brainwashed by science.
Quoting universeness
Neither am I. Especially not by science.
He could have but I think he chose not to waste his time. He was published and peer-reviewed.
I don't think Einstein was ever concerned about being banned from physics media, even though his ideas were very new and quite revolutionary. They were nonetheless very plausible. I think that's what makes the difference to the established science community.
They want to focus on the most plausible ideas which is probably why the mobius strip/klein bottle guy can't get a contract with a group like Patreon to do monthly MobiusklineScape podcasts on Youtube.
Quoting Hillary
Well, I am not suggesting you are Egyptian or anything but you are certainly in DEniAl.
So there is a Jewish science? My dear mother of gods. And dont say I put words in your mouth because that's exactly the same. Capra and Chew are the same mystics. Elementary particles don't exist? Irrational woowoo nonsense. Only interactions count? Woowoo!
I don't deny anything. You deny the woowoo. Not me. I like woowoo science as well as gods.
The nation and culture you are nurtured in, will affect your approach to science in many nuanced ways. Some nuances will be strengths and others weaknesses.
Quoting Hillary
Possibly true, I didn't know them personally, did you? Personally, I wouldn't label Chew a mystic, maybe Chew founded the bootstrap philosophy to try to bridge some gaps as well as view the issues of the time and the hot questions in physics at the time from 'new' angles. I don't know, hence the thread to invite the opinions of others.
I know what they wrote. Mystics!
You are quite mystical yourself!
That can't be denied. But my physics is rather straight to Earth. What's mystical is the content of matter and the eternity of the gods who created this divine matter.
I have very little interest in mysticism!
I can't help you with that problem, brother Uni! I'll pray forya!
:zip: You shut me up!
:snicker: I don't get it but since you're so smart, I know it's funny! :grin:
A desperado's escape hatch! Something must give, si?
The idea of conformal bootstrapping is simple. In the S-matrix all particle scattering probabilities are encoded as matrix elements (initial and final states). On every scale the same fields procedure is present. Where does this leave the particle? The problem arises when modeling the particle as a point. The most silly concept ever invented in physics.
:joke: :snicker: :love: :starstruck: :kiss:
...
Quoting Agent Smith
Cryptic! I think you like the fact that I have no idea if you are attacking me or supporting me.
Perhaps a little of both? :chin:
I try to stay literal!
I haven't completely 'sussed' the subtleties of your approach yet agent smith.
Your typing above would suggest your meaning is easy to follow if you look at the literal meaning of the words you type but it could also be an admission that the exact opposite is true.
I remain, as I expect you prefer, fogged, concerning your actual opinions on most topics.
I don't mind the dance! :party:
I'm not a sophisticated person, mon ami! I've always had the feeling I have barbarian blood in me. :snicker:
Barbarian was from a Greek word that just meant foreigner. It was the nasty Romans who used it to refer to hordes of tribal folks that just charged them en masse with manic fervour and in what seemed like complete disregard for their own lives. Especially when the Romans were in strong supportive formations, backed up by the lethal artillery systems that Rome also had.
There were/are plenty of sophisticated foreigners/barbarians now and in the days of the Romans.
I think it's a shame that 'barbarian' is such a negatively burdened word, which is not historically fair. Same with Vandal, or Goth.
I personally think Celtic and Germanic art, jewelry etc is better than Roman.
If you are not being 'sophisticated' or deliberately cryptic then perhaps you are just trying to be diplomatic. If so, then being considerate is a strength imo.
I see. Good to know. Muchas gracias.
Fractal / hologram. :cool:
Quoting universeness
:up:
Quoting Agent Smith
And, no doubt, "contagious" ... :smirk:
Quoting 180 Proof
I am still pretty foggy on the message here.
It could be that Agent Smith is roleplaying me and thinks I should be uttering the words in the quote he typed above and 180 proof is simply suggesting something general like 'yeah there is a lot of 'stupid' being demonstrated on this site!
When I try to 'decipher' what others truly mean, I oscillate between self-accusation of being overly analytical to a kind of embarrassed feeling of 'no shit Sherlock,' of course, that's what they really mean.
I suppose, In the final analysis, such analysis is more about me than it is about anyone else.
All interesting stuff!
Again I go back to one of my favourite Rabbie Burns Quotes:
'Oh wad some power, the giftie gie us, tae see oorsels as ithers see us.'
Let's analyze.
"a view of nature that arose in quantum theory with the realization of an essential and universal interrelationship "
Which view? Which universal and universal relationship? It's about the whole of interactions between all particles, like there is already an infinity of couplings (if we consider particles as points) involved in two particle interaction (there is a theorem in quantum field theory that allows the decoupling of the Hilbert spaces in the direct product space of the whole if they are far away from each other). The leaving out of the point particles is an artificial procedure, and it originates in treating particles as point-like. In other words. Woowoo.
We go on.
" and is now in harmony with Eastern thought, both in its general philosophy and in its specific picture of matter."
Complete woowoo.
Quoting universeness
Which events?
The properties of any part follow from the properties of the other parts. This is the core of the bootstrap. Now while it's true that there is a mereology to be found in nature, if you read what is stated you will see the circularity and impossibility to draw reality out of the swamp by it's own hair. But by leaving out the particles this can magically be done. Which we call: WOOWOO!
Well, thanks for your opinion of the description of 'bootstrap philosophy,' I inlcuded in the OP.
I take it that you also read my words:
Quoting universeness
So I have no intention of defending the description in the OP.
A point particle was always a purely mathematical construct as it has 0 dimensional extensions. It only has coordinates in 3D space. 0 dim point particles were therefore not an important concept in the bootstrap approach.
As the quote about Chew in the OP suggested:
S-matrix theorists sought to understand the strong interaction by using the analytic properties of the scattering matrix to calculate the interactions of bound-states without assuming that there is a point-particle field theory underneath.
Quoting Hillary
I think they are referring to the 'universal harmonious interactions' suggested in Eastern thought as being evidenced by the harmonious interactions which occur in subatomic reality, nothing more.
I wouldn't call that woo woo, certainly not when compared to your woo woo about dino gods etc.
Quoting Hillary
All subatomic events!
Quoting Hillary
Well , you the polytheist, calls it woo woo! :rofl: You who suggest heaven exists and is full of gods of extinct animals, who must vastly outnumber your humanoid gods around the ratio of 1 humgod to 99 ani/dinogods. :rofl: A Trex god who is entertained by human activities on this single tiny wee planet Earth. :rofl:
Ah! I thought you had joined the mystics! Thank god!
Quoting universeness
Which are?
Quoting universeness
Brother Uni! We're over that now. We talk science now. Don't you call leaving out the particles woowoo? And even worse, point particles, though maybe in this context it's precisely this stupid assumption which makes it possible. One point more or less... That's the problem in QFT: point particles! The continuum cant be broken up in points.
I have to admit, you are the first on Earth getting the picture! :lol:
Not sure if the Trex god gets off by watching us though...
Personally I quite like Krishnamurti - I still own a few of his books. As mystics go, he is one of the better ones. And I say this as a heathen.
It’s also known as German Idealism. Physics tends to recapitulate early movements in philosophy( Capra, Kant and Schelling, Bohr and Hegel)
Which only goes to show what nasty influence math can have.
Quoting Tom Storm
:up:
I think Bohm wouldn't mind. He was called a Trotskyan, a mindless juvenile, a %$%#% etc. No wonder he got depressed. Blaming him to have had intercourse with a mystic is not too hard to swallow.
But particles are exactly what stuff is made of. How can you ignore them?
Nice analysis! You, sir/ma'am, are on the right track.
:snicker:
Question: It appears that stupidity is more contagious than smarts! I don't know why. Any ideas big fella?
:point:
Life, then, is a struggle against foolery.
Here's an interesting thought. You of course know that nature's been characterized as lazy (paths of least resistance, that's how she likes to do it). If philosophy, sensu amplo, is so god damned hard, doesn't it mean that nature doesn't want us to take that route. Zen Buddhism's concepts of mushin no shin (mind without mind), shoshin (beginner's mind), Koans (virtual lobotomy tools) and Taoism's wu wei seem to suggest that we should...er...stop thinking and the sooner we do that the better. :chin:
Am I stupid?
Arent we all?
:snicker: Double whammy! Moron + Dunning-Kruger effect!!!
I like psychology - it shows me things about myself I would've never found out on my own. We should ask senate to fund psychology research at the same level/higher as/than space exploration. They should take helpful hints and tips from Star Trek: Most epsiodes are a blend of space & mind. Mindspace! :chin:
At least your interpretative skills are consistent in this area. Unfortunately, they are consistently wrong.
Quoting Hillary
Are you trying to get me, who regularly confirms that my qualifications in physics (1st year Uni) + my own reading since) is limited. You are so obvious. Anyway, how about pair production.
Quoting Hillary
Noooooooooooo! You will never be allowed to do that. Your scientific musing will always be related to your dalliances with theism. To me, it makes your rationality as suspicious as a socialist who accepts a place in the house of lords and uses the title that comes with it. Such a person is no socialist imo!
Quoting Hillary
If QFT is correct and space itself consists of properties (which are currently being presented as 'fields,' scalar fields, vector fields, spinor fields etc) then all particles are disturbances/excitations of the fields.
I see this as a universe that in its entirety, is like a liquid. Nothing can separate from the liquid ln the way that happens during a 'splash' in water. There is no 'outside' of the universe. But space is internally dynamic and individual particles/concentrations/excitations/ripples/perturbations etc can 'interact,' and that is what creates the content of the Universe. A very simplistic overview of reality I know, but then, I am not a physicist. I also still am currently most convinced by the idea that our Macro 3D space could be due to something akin to or exactly like string vibrations in > 3 dimensions. Phenomena like Gravity and time etc would result purely as a consequence of subatomic interactions in a similar way to wind or weather phenomena being a consequence of interactions rather than a separate fundamental force, which perhaps relates to the bootstrap philosophy.
I have a sister that would agree with you. We often argue about Jiddu. I think he was a flim-flam man who was clever enough to earn an easy living.
From wiki:
In his early life, he was groomed to be the new World Teacher, an advanced spiritual position in the theosophical tradition, but later rejected this mantle and withdrew from the organization behind it
I am not so sure he left his 'theosophy' behind him. I use the theosophist label for characters from such as Rasputin to Aleister Crowley, the Maharishi, Elijah Mohamed etc. All flim-flam artists.
Imo, Jiddu made so many inane quotes that were dressed up in contrived wording but were actually more like 'no shit Sherlock.' observations.
Examples from the internet (again, I stress this is just my opinion) are:
[i]"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
"Tradition becomes our security, and when the mind is secure it is in decay."
"Religion is the frozen thought of man out of which they build temples."
"Freedom from the desire for an answer is essential to the understanding of a problem."
"One is never afraid of the unknown; one is afraid of the known coming to an end."
"The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear."
"With increasing age, dullness of mind and heart sets in."
"When I understand myself, I understand you, and out of that understanding comes love."
"Truth is a pathless land."
"This is love: the flowering of love is meditation."[/i]
Jiddu was a BS artist in pursuit of a free lunch in my opinion, sorry Tom, sorry sis!
Thanks but I don't know which analysis you are referring to? But thanks! :smile:
Btw. I can confirm I am male so no need for the sir/madam.
The universe like a liquid? Hidden variables constitute space. They are like liquid in the sense that particles swim in it and are guided by it. Particles hop around within the confines of the wavefunction. You repeatedly have made the mistake to see fields as disturbances of space. Fields are just mathematical tools. The fields assign operator valued distributions to every point in space. The operators "create" or "annihilate" free particle states. Creation means turning a virtual particle real and annihilation means turning real to virtual. Two electrons interact by coupling to omnipresent virtual photons. There is no emission, no absorption. All particles are conserved. Ther only are shapeshiftings from real to virtual and vice-versa.
So in a sense, the water analogy is a good one. But what the water is, is wrong in your case. The fields not are space. It are the hidden variables.
Doesn't worry me what people think about him. I think of him these days as a talented performance artist and his private life was bad. I have read a lot about him. Unfortunately. I spent a lot of time 35 years ago in the company of 'New Age' folk, teachers, gurus, monks, seers, and their disciples (yoga, Steiner, Buddhism, theosophy, Gurdjieff, etc). What I found was that the people involved were as racked with anxiety, flaws and substance issues as any other group. So far from providing consolation or peace, most of the folk were ambitious, status obsessed and very poor advertisements for the contemplative life. Doesn't mean the beliefs are untrue, just that I see little point in them.
How would talking with a mystic change your physics, and how do you know it's not for the good? I think Bohm learns more about physics from talking to the mystic than from talking to you and listen to your view on physics, which is rather shallow, if you don't mind me saying.
Quoting universeness
J know a few of them on the university department of physics! 15000 euro/month. For sitting around, making notes, and having free lunches.
Quoting universeness
Emergent gravity is an old theme (Erik Verlinde's take has it the wrong way round though). 3D space and thermodynamical time are indeed emergent on a wider 4D space context. Empty space doesn't emerge from graviton strings, as strings are woowoo in the first place. The problem with quantum gravity is that condensates of gravitons can't account for curvature, even though they are tensor particles. Ask this question on a physics forum and... The problem is how spacetime is curved. This can only by letting gravitons get a direct grip on space. And the hidden variables make up space in which, even in a vacuum, particles whirl around. The virtual whirling is accompanied by space. Negatively curved.
What the fuck? Are you serious here or role playing? I hope the last! We have enough discussed about the gods. Let them peacefully rest and look how we talk science! Just ignore them or pretend they don't exist! Yeeeeeeeeeees!
Okay. Space. You say it's caused by vibrating strings. What makes them vibrate?
A real particle pair is just a time extended virtual particle. All particles in the universe eventually meet up with it's anti version to dive back into virtual existence. In agreement with my view on two constituent massless particle fields. There are equal amounts of these two basics and their anti's. So all particle-antiparticle pairs are just one particle that has gotten a direction in time. It's a broken up quantum bubble (which is just one, virtual particle still fluctuating in space and time).
Hey! Got my first follower on Quora! Entered a question and 16 answers yesterday. Thanks to you, brother Uni! :starstruck:
Not what I suggested. Space IS one big field of potential. disturbances/excitations occur in space rather than space being separate from the excitations/perturbations which happen within it.
Quoting Hillary
Virtual particles are also a mathematical tool. It is mere projection to suggest that that which is virtual become real. I think I will call that 'the Pinocchio fallacy.' Explain the detail of how something 'virtual' can become 'real.' Energy turning into mass for example is not virtual becoming real as the energy involved was already real.
Quoting Hillary
There is a great deal of info on quora and physics stack exchange regarding electron repulsion/collision/interaction. I was tempted to copy and paste some of it but it would have taken up too much space. Almost none of the examples agree with your claim that no emission or absorption of photons is involved. I have much more confidence in the experimental physicists who comment on such sites than I have in you.
Quoting Hillary
Yes I am. Don't spout polytheism and expect everyone to not take account of that when you try to challenge currently established physics. Are YOU serious? :lol:
The existence of other dimensions I expect but perhaps you should ask a string theorist.
Your welcome, although I don't know why you are thanking me for your own postings on Quora.
I would like a link to your question and your 16 answers however. I would like to read that.
Of course you don't, and neither should you. My disdain of JK has not put my sister off him either.
She buys a calendar of his quotes every year! :roll: She even sends one to my mother and other sister :lol:
Quoting Tom Storm
Still, such an experience would make you a wiser man, overall, I think.
No, I don't at all mind you saying! If I advocate for humans to become an interplanetary species with increased lifespan options then I think it would be more progressive towards such goals to promote science and scientists that regress or hinder such goals by allowing BS from mystics to have airspace.
That's what I meant. But it's not like that. WOOWOOOOO! :lol:
Quoting universeness
That's what they make you think. Virtual particles nor real particles are mathematical constructions, fluctuations or excitations of fields. That's what they tell you and you parrot it. Fields are just math constructions, not reality. Fields assign states in a Fock space. And these states correspond to free particle wavefunctions. And these describe particles! Hopping within the confines of the wavefunction. The wavefunctions in QM are cross sections of fields. A virtual particle is virtual in the sense that its not on mass shell. So energy and 3 momentum are independent. And a virtual particle wavers amongst all possible E's and p's. So when two electrons interact the can offer the right E and p.
Quoting universeness
Of course you might promote whatever you like. But you nevef can forbid people to talk woowoo BS because it doesn't fit your, glorious" goal of immortal supermen. Jesus man! Are you so dissatisfied with yourself? :lol:
Because if you didn't offer the posting I wouldn't have posted myself! M il Guercio. My pseudo on quora.
That's because I am more convinced by my understanding of their physics than yours.
I dont care if you suggest that's because I dont understand your physics.
I think I understand enough to reject it in favour of those who suggest that phenomena such as photon absorption happens.
I am glad you at least admit it's BS, but no, I don't mind if foolish people insist on remaining foolish.
Some people kill themselves and I can't stop that either.
I am human enough to feel pity/sadness for them.
That's because you don't understand QFT properly and just parrot what the "expert" says. Can't you see what they do? Apparently not. I suggest you study QFT properly first, before continuing. You don't seem to get it! Woowoo! :lol:
Science is BS just the same. But you won't admit it.
My dear mother of god...
I thought you said you had been on these sites many times and had been banned many times!
I will search on quora for your pseudonym.
Yeah, says you! I would benefit from more study in physics but I predict that if I achieve such then my distance from your physics posits will increase not decrease.
Yeah, because your suggestion is incorrect.
Quoting Hillary
If all your gods have mothers and they had mothers are you not back to infinite regress again.
Which god is your chosen first cause?
Do you have a name for it or do you just go with the generic lazy label g o d ? :brow:
Yes. On stack exchange, physics forum and one national here.
Not one is a first cause cause. Jesus brother Uni I get a bit tired of having to defend myself. If your intention is to unmask the theist, go try it at someone else. You cant unmask me because I wear no mask!
Searched for M il Guercio on quora and only got some matches with free books to read that had author names which were partly related to M il Guercio.
No matches when I searched under 'profile,' 'questions,' or 'threads.'
Posting a direct link would be easier if you have no reason not to.
My name is not M...
The question I asked is not give fiat yet... Yesterday asked. See what I mean?
But you do state god is your first cause, yes?
I am not asking you to defend yourself, I am asking you to explain yourself.
You have tried to but I still see no rationale which you claim connects your physics to your polytheism.
I remain of the opinion that you insult your physics with your polytheism and that will stay with me as regards you.
Your claim that you don't wear masks is just ridiculous since you claimed to be an atheist on one occasion and did not correct another member who thought you were female.
I am trying to get you to focus on your science ability and not your polytheism.
It's okay for you to resist and utterly reject my attempts but I can be as tenacious as you!
I don't mind if I am unsuccessful, I have already posted to you the words 'Well, I tried.'
I will move on eventually but I will always dig you about it as long as we are communicating.
The gods life eternally. No first reason necessary. Eternal intelligence itself is reason. My serial big bang is inspired by the divine longing to watch eternally to their creation. The torus vision I saw in that divine dream.
Can you still hear the wolfs cry?
Can you be sure my name is Stephen? Do I really paint? etc etc!
You believe what people tell you or you don't.
I have good radar and a good ability to smell subterfuge when it really matters so I am unconcerned.
Not immune, but unconcerned!
Remember this
As I said, no rationale!
Jesus brother Uni! You know my name! M...?
Not one you understand!
In the true traditions of the false gods, you go by many names. none of which are significant.
Quoting Hillary
It's my understanding that fuels my decision to reject many of your viewpoints.
Why not? The wormhole vision popped up to show me how you can big bangs let emerge. The image was pumping like a heart, sending away two universes on opposite of the mouth. And I thank the gods for that image.
It's irrational to accept dreamed images as relevant to reality.
Your brain certainly can continue to 'think' during your dream states but that has nothing to do with the supernatural.
What? If you are trying to type that you cant provide a link to your quora question and your 16 answers yet, then fine. When will you be able to provide the link?
How do you know that? QM offers a possibility for them to interact with the mind. They cant show up in macro but certainly in the micro.
SORRY! the penny has just dropped! I know what to search quora with!
A PM might have been easier and then I wouldn't have came to the completely wrong conclusion I did.
I'll try to find a link. I have the app on my phone. No link adres visible. I searched my name. It popped up!
There are too many hits for that search criteria on quora. No success.
It's usually quite easy to copy and paste a URL even on a mobile phone, but no worries.
If you can provide the link then it would be interesting to read the question you posted and the responses you got.
Ah, found it!!!!
I didn't put the pieces together till now. Using the FULL search criteria, I found your question.
Away to read it. Will post back later!
We're truly brothers. Just managed to find the link.. But Ill leave it... Hope you like it@
I see you have posted lots of questions on quora. Good, I hope you get the expert responses from physicists which support/challenge your hypothesis. I am away to read some of it!
I thought you had posted lots of questions on Quora but I could only find examples of your answers to questions posted by others.
When I searched for you under 'questions,' I got no hits.
Has your question (16 responses) still going through their moderation process before it is placed on the live site?
Like I said, no fiat for the question. Im still waiting. But Ive given the question as an answer!
I thought 'fiat' was a brand of car?
I also don't get 'ive given the question as an answer'
Do you mean you posted an answer to a question posted by someone else and then you got 16 responses to your answer?
If so, which of your answers are you referring to?
I looked for more detail on 'fiat.' So you mean the question is not sanctioned yet, so still under mderation? So how did you get 16 responses?
I gave a lot of answers last night. And I asked the question right now. I posted but not questioned. Only a short question will do. I dont get the system yet. Ill try again.
Allright!
Was working on a new oil painting, will look at the link you sent in the PM soon.
Hit the canvas! Show them theists!